Zuma case is acid test of Abrahams’s mettle

LIKE almost all of President Jacob Zuma’s appointments to important public posts, Shaun Abrahams’s selection as the national director of public prosecutions was met with much suspicion, and even condemnation.

His critics rejected him as a Zuma lackey who was chosen to ensure that the president is never prosecuted on the more than 700 counts of corruption and fraud he faced before becoming head of state.

Abrahams rejects the accusation. On numerous public speaking engagements and in interviews, Abrahams has announced that he is his own man and will carry out his duties without fear or favour.

But the proof of the pudding, as they say, is in the eating.

Abrahams now has the perfect opportunity to show his critics that, as in the cases of other Zuma appointees such as public protector Thuli Madonsela and Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng, they were wrong about him.

Lest we forget, there was a lot of scepticism when Madonsela was named public protector, with some alleging that her past membership of the ANC meant her job would be to shield the president and his cabinet from criticism.

As her term draws to an end, few can question her independence and the courage she showed in taking on the powerful, regardless of the consequences.

The same may be said of Mogoeng, who has made his critics eat humble pie, especially after the recent Constitutional Court judgment on Nkandla.

On Friday, the High Court in Pretoria set aside the National Prosecuting Authority’s controversial 2009 decision to halt its prosecution of Zuma.

The court ruled that the decision, taken by thenacting national director of public prosecutions Mokotedi Mpshe, was “irrational”.

It is now up to Abrahams whether to reinstate the 783 charges of fraud, corruption and racketeering against the president.

Abrahams has the sole authority to prosecute crime and, yes, he has every right to take the high court’s decision on appeal if he believes the court has erred.

But this matter has gone on for far too long; has already cost taxpayers more than R40-million in Zuma’s legal fees, and needs to be resolved by the president finally being given his day in court, as he demanded repeatedly prior to 2009.

The NPA’s reputation was damaged by Mpshe’s “irrational decision” — taken barely a month before Zuma became the country’s president — not to prosecute.

Since then, the institution has appeared to be fighting the president’s corner as he employed every tactic in the book to prevent the reinstatement of the charges.

Abrahams can restore the prosecuting body’s reputation by expeditiously charging Zuma. Abrahams’s job is not to protect his boss, but to ensure the NPA carries out its constitutional obligations.

Zuma, too, has a responsibility not to further delay the case from coming to court. As much as he has the right to appeal all the way up to the Constitutional Court, it is time he puts the interests of the country and justice first.

If the president really believes that he is innocent — and that he was a victim of a political conspiracy to stop him from becoming head of state — he should allow the case to continue so that he can present the evidence for his claims before a court of law.